Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 236 posts

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#141

Post by nitrogen »

blowski wrote: post #90
nitrogen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you are trying to use the foot-in-the-door technique. But you are looking at just one concern being very hypothetically alleviated, when there are many many other reasons that have been repeatedly discussed for years. So in practice, the answer to your question is no, and there is no reasonably considered theory where the answer would be yes.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The risk of saying "we shouldn't do this because it won't work" is that it only has to work a little bit for the argument against it to fail. And it will certainly work a little bit at reducing one type of terrorism, just not enough to outweigh all the other negative effects. That said, I would also like to see more discussion of alternatives instead of just saying "it'll never work".

The alternatives I want to see discussed all involve cultural changes. Sometimes when I try to discuss these with people they get fixated on shifting 100% of blame onto the attackers and 0% onto culture/society/foreign policy/poverty/whatever, but assigning blame is a completely pointless activity and the question needs to be what will actually work, not what will feel good to our primitive instincts for vengeance.

Some hypothetical approaches for discussion:

- Convincing violent groups to be less violent; demonstrating that they can get more of what they want by participating in society than by attacking it (a multi-generational issue)

- Finding a place for the "lone wolf" types to feel like their needs and concerns are addressed, including mental health

- Getting first-world powers to stop purposely destabilizing other countries

- Accepting what remains of the problem as if it's a natural disaster (e.g. just as people accept or ignore the 1000x worse problem of traffic deaths)

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#142

Post by reitanqild »

blowski wrote: post #115
Blahah wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave t…

> There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it.

This is important to understand.

Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason:

We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO.

Seens we are allowing this stream of immigrants not because we are good-harted but because we are stupid.

This means we could be more secure and help more refugees if we stopped playing for cheap political correctness points and started to think about how we could help as many as possible.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#143

Post by granfalloon »

tetrep wrote: post #24

I think this same logic that is purportedly the reasoning behind this bill would also require us to constantly record all of our vocal communications, as that would be the only way we could ensure that criminals could not have communications that aren't accessible to law enforcement. This, of course, would require microphones on all citizens as well as many more in the surrounding environment, to ensure communication…

Why do you say it's analogous to "requiring us to constantly record all of our vocal communications"? Don't they just want to make it possible for police to record electronic communications, the same way police can already record vocal communications with a warrant and sufficient resources?

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#144

Post by robocat »

blowski wrote: post #81
morsch wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe doesn't clearly have a security problem. A few insane people committing political violence doesn't change the fact that Europe is among the safest places on the planet.

At a data level, you are more likely to die or be injured in a politically-motivated attack today than you were 10 years ago. Attacks are now more frequent, more geographically dispersed, and more deadly - even if only on a very small percentage level. Even if it's not a problem today (in your opinion), then either that trend has to be reversed or it will become a problem at some point.

Anyone can make a trend by selecting their date range. In the 70's in Ireland:

In 1972, there were over 12,000 shooting and bombing attacks in Northern Ireland; by 1977, this was down to 2,800.[41] In 1976, there were 297 deaths in Northern Ireland; in the next three years the figures were 112, 81, and 113.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#145

Post by kiba »

reitanqild wrote: post #142
blowski wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave t…

> There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. This is important to understand. Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason: We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO. Seens we are allowing…

We are getting a flow of immigrants because the civil war in Syria did not stop, and instead rage on and on destroying the infrastructure and economy there that is needed to sustain the civilian population there.

We are squeamish because we do not want to send young men and women to die in some godforsaken country, doing god know what for god knows how long.

Remember the last time that happened? Oh yes, the Iraqi occupation that seem to go on forever and forever, draining the blood and treasure of the United States.

Either we pay it now, or we pay it later.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#146

Post by TillE »

Blahah wrote: post #105
blowski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, because complaining about intrusions on our privacy and how ineffective they are, has become de rigeur on HN and Reddit without much dissent. There clearly is a security problem in Europe at the moment, and I'm assuming that the attacks are not being organised by the security services. So will this bill reduce, increase or have no effect on the attacks? If not, then what would…

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

The recent attacks in Germany are a particularly relevant example.

Aside from the fact that zero people have thus far been killed by Islamist terrorists in Germany (since...I'm not sure when), every single incident was perpetrated by one person acting entirely on his own. And the thing in Reutlingen which keeps getting lumped in was a "normal" murder.

No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have the slightest impact on any of this, not until you crank it to the level of a genuine police state with zero freedom.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#147

Post by lettergram »

astronautjones wrote: post #126
tasqa wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply cannot upvote your comment enough. Very consise and to the point IMHO.

Indeed, you've put it better than most have. The voice of reason seems to be getting drowned out more each day

#thankthemedia

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#148

Post by gakada »

reitanqild wrote: post #142
blowski wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave t…

> There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. This is important to understand. Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason: We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO. Seens we are allowing…

In what way are EU states 'allowing this stream of immigrants'? The refugees are entering through illegal crossings. By definition, their entry is not allowed, but happens regardless.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#150

Post by mrmondo »

blowski wrote: post #53
tetrep wrote: post #24

I think this same logic that is purportedly the reasoning behind this bill would also require us to constantly record all of our vocal communications, as that would be the only way we could ensure that criminals could not have communications that aren't accessible to law enforcement. This, of course, would require microphones on all citizens as well as many more in the surrounding environment, to ensure communication…

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, because complaining about intrusions on our privacy and how ineffective they are, has become de rigeur on HN and Reddit without much dissent. There clearly is a security problem in Europe at the moment, and I'm assuming that the attacks are not being organised by the security services. So will this bill reduce, increase or have no effect on the attacks? If not, then what would…

If nothing else the last two decades have shown us that people planning harmful attacks tend not to use complex, digital methods of communication and innocent people tend to. I'm like a sardine on a train so I can't easily provide references now but that in itself should be enough to say 'YOU'RE NOT TARGETING VIOLENT CRIMINALS - YOU'RE TARGETING THE PUBLIC! (and likely corporate / political competition)' and that should be that.
Post reply on HN